UPDATE 6: One of the fault lines running through the OPR Final Report, the Margois Memo, and the Yoo Response concerns the proper definition of a the ethical duties of a government lawyer. We often read that a government lawyer has a higher calling or higher duty, but when it comes to imposing discipline it is hard to offer a precise definition of that difference. Margolis found that the OPR defined the standard in part by using post-facto position papers, including one by former OLC lawyers who were openly critical of the torture memos. Margolis also refers to "OPR's failure to properly identify an applicable known, unambiguous standard." (p. 11) Thus we see a common problem in the interpretation of ethical standards: the difference between viewing ethics rules as (1) quasi-criminal statutes that must be construed fairly strictly, or as (2) high moral standards that we enthusiastically embrace—especially when we're thinking about government lawyers construing the word "torture" and knowing that their advice will affect real human beings. Margolis's use of the former interpretation is, I take it, part of what prompted Professor Balkin's rhetoric.